Is this the real truth about the 9/11 planes

I believe that planes hit the WTC and the Pentagon as per the media narrative. One thing does confuse me, and if anyone can enlighten me it would be
appreciated.

Photographs show the interior of the Pentagon after the plane hit (full of jet fuel). How is it that there is an opened book sitting on top of a
stool, seemingly untouched by the inferno of the exploding plane?

This is one item I've seen mentioned a number of times, yet I've never seen an explanation I can recall.

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
You may be naive enough to believe a bunch of guys with box cutters hijacked planes AND were competent enough to fly them into buildings, but not me.

You are quick to throw around insulting words .. but you are short on facts.
Address the issues.

We've debunked the statement that it was a missile that hit the pentagon.
We've debunked the statement about Enron documents.
We've debunked the statement about remote control instead of pilots flying the planes.
We've debunked the statement that the people are alive and having plastic surgery.
We've debunked the statement that the planes landed safely in Canada.
We've debunked the statement that there was no plane wreckage in the Pentagon debris.
We've debunked the statement that the Air Force shot down the Shanksville flight.

Have you got any facts to present? Or is it just going to be more insulting rhetoric?

You'll have to post a picture for us to see. Can't really comment on it until we see the picture.

That being said, have you ever seen what happens with a tornado? It can wipe out a house down to the slab and yet, the house next to it has no damage
at all. We don't know the dynamics happening and what the air flows are inside the Pentagon. That .. and when was the picture taken? Was it after
the fire was out or on the way out? Had people started to go through the wreckage to find survivors or bodies or whatever? People move things.

The only fighters that launched armed in the initial response were two Langley F-15s, and two from Cape Cod. Those were the only armed aircraft on
alert that were in range when it all started. It normally takes a couple hours from a flat footed start to get missiles uploaded. If you're willing
to launch with a minimum load you can shave some time off, but you're looking at an hour to hour and a half minimum.

Just because you call the military doesn't mean they send fighters like we send firefighters on a medical run.
They may do that now but not back in 2001.
Besides when you dial the Air Force you are going to get some low level phone operator. SHe has to start passing the message up the chain.
The planes are faster than command orders.

At the time of its destruction, Building 7 housed documents relating to numerous SEC investigations. The files for approximately three to four
thousand cases were destroyed, according to the Los Angeles Times. Among the destroyed documents were ones that may have demonstrated the relationship
between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy.

FACT 2: WTC Building 7 – on its 23rd floor – housed an Emergency Command Center for the City of New York that Mayor Rudolph Giuliani had built in
the mid-1990’s. On the morning of September 11th, Mayor Giuliani did not go “to his Command Center – with its clear view of the Twin Towers –
but to a makeshift, street-level headquarters at 75 Barkley Street.” WTC 7 also held the offices of numerous government agencies, including the
Department of Defense, the CIA, the Secret Service, the IRS, and the Security and Exchange Commission.5 Late 2001 was the time of “the height of the
investigation into Enron, so the majority of Enron’s SEC filings were likely destroyed when World Trade Center 7 came down.”6

Feel free to Google WTC7 documents destroyed. It's all lies right?

Witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon.........of course they did........
They also saw the plane crash in Shanksville........of course they did.......

If I had video of that plane being shot out of the sky the US govt would never admit they shot it down....NEVER under any circumstances would they
EVER admit it.

Calling a person naive is hardly insulting.......however you calling me stupid like you did on page 1 is.....oh I see you edited that.

I posted facts. Enron HQ was in Texas. The scandal didn't arrive until a month after 911. And IT STILL HAPPENED. So whatever was or wasn't in the
trade center was IRRELEVANT. Whatever someone speculates about being in the World Trade Center ... it didn't effect the fact that ENRON got
nailed.

I posted facts. The names and pictures of the pilots who died.
I posted facts. The information and pictures of debris from the Pentagon.
The roll call of the dead from the flights. FACTS.

Witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon.........of course they did........
They also saw the plane crash in Shanksville........of course they did.......

Yes. Tons of eyewitness' They are more credible than an extremely far fetched and easily
debunked conspiracy theories regarding 'remote control' airplanes on 9/11.

If I had video of that plane being shot out of the sky the US govt would never admit they shot it down....NEVER under any circumstances would
they EVER admit it.

What are you talking about. No one has a video of a missile or gov't plane shooting anything.

You've been debunked. Over and over.
Again .. do you have any proof or any credible facts??
If so post them. Otherwise .....

Because their mission was to scramble. The NEADS command post had the authority to launch alert fighters, but not to order more armed as backup. That
had to come from NORAD. That took time. The commanders could start prepping weapons but the upload order had to come down the chain.

I posted the story for those of us who believe there are 1 or more conspiracies surrounding 9/11. Last I checked this is a conspiracy theory forum and
we should be allowed to openly discuss these topics without being repeatedly harassed by posters like you.

You claim that your information is the truth when it is nothing more than what you saw on tv or read in a newspaper and you call that proof? Then you
demand I show proof of everything?

I have posted numerous links and there are many more out there. You choose to believe as you wish and I will do the same.

Oh I see......then explain how 2 F-15's were scrambled from Falmouth, MA and then 3 F-16's were scrambled from Langley a short time later all in the
air by 9:40 am?

I'm not saying when or if fighters were scrambled.
I'm just saying it's a big leap to say those pilots had the weapons and the athority to shoot down a passenger air liner before said planes hit
their targets.

I'm guessing the planners relied on it taking a long time for TPTB to give to OK for a US fighter to shoot down a US passenger plane for the first
time in history.

We all already know about the mystery plane over Washington, it is on video on youtube from news TV for yonks.

The trouble with the OP link, the rest of the story is all about what they say they know, the planes landing in Canada, the Pentagon Missile,
Barbara Olsen with a new face-job and living it up in Sweden etc: yet there is not one bit of scratchings offered to make it all real. IMO, the Op's
link, (and no offence to the OP) is for whacko's who just need to be told something and believe it.
I have problems with the official 9/11 tale, I don't think that there are many people, who don't find the official 9/11 story problematic, because it
is, but there needs to be something on the table, not just sweeping statements from out of the blue.

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
this is a conspiracy theory forum and we should be allowed to openly discuss these topics without being repeatedly harassed by posters like
you.

This is a discussion forum and you are free to post any theories you wish. HOWEVER, you posted 'is this the real truth about the 9/11 planes?'

- The topic of this thread asked a question. So I posted factual information answering that question.
- That's not 'harassment'. That's posting factual responses to the topic of the thread.
- An open discussion forum is not a soap box for people to preach whatever they want without getting responses. That's what a blog is for .. not a
discussion forum.

You claim that your information is the truth when it is nothing more than what you saw on tv or read in a newspaper and you call that proof?

what you call 'nothing more than on TV or a newspaper' is indeed facts and proof. From them come...
- Names and pictures of those pilots who died is proof that the planes were not remote controlled.
- Engineering and structural information is proof that the 'lack of pictures of debris' argument is moot.
- Eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon and Shanksville crashes are proof of planes.
- Information about Enron location and Enron timelines is proof.
- Stating the fact that just because something might be able to happen, doesn't mean that it did happen, is part of any viable discussion. Just
because something CAN happen isn't proof that it DID.

Then you demand I show proof of everything?

The title of this thread said 'the real truth' ... you are trying to defend it as 'the real truth'
.... so prove the 'remote control airplanes' are 'the real truth'.

With regards to a mystery plane over the Pentagon, the only planes over the area at the time of impact were a C-130 that had launched out of Andrews
on a routine flight home, and the E-4B that scrambled out of Andrews when it became clear what was happening. It had a full crew plus battle staff
IIRC at the time of launch.

And just because planes are scrambled .. and even if they got orders to shoot a plane down ...
doesn't mean that they made it to the hijacked plane before it was brought down.

Eyewitness testimony states very clearly that the hijacked plane was traveling excessively
fast and low and that it crashed quickly. Eyewitness testimony states that the Air Force jets
did indeed show up, but not until minutes later.

The Air Force arrived too late to shoot the plane down. I'm sure the pilots of those planes
were glad that they didn't have to carry out their orders. They weren't glad the plane crashed,
of course, but I have no doubt that they were glad they weren't the ones who pulled the trigger.

Norad was basically screaming at Langley to get as many fighters to battle ready as possible. They normally only have 2 F-16's fully armed.

(Between 9:10 a.m. and 9:23 a.m.) September 11, 2001: NEADS Wants Third Jet Launched from Langley, Meaning Unit Will Have No Supervisor of FlyingEdit
event The operations manager with the unit at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, that is involved in NORAD’s air defense mission is instructed to
prepare to launch three F-16s from the base, even though the unit only keeps two such jets on “alert.” [CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, 4/16/2002;
SPENCER, 2008, PP. 118] NEADS Calls Langley - Captain Craig Borgstrom is the operations manager of a detachment at Langley from the North Dakota Air
National Guard’s 119th Fighter Wing. In the event of an order to scramble the unit’s two alert F-16s, he would serve as the supervisor of flying
(SOF), responsible for informing the pilots about their mission. [SPENCER, 2008, PP. 114, 116] The unit has just received the signal to put its alert
jets on “battle stations,” with the pilots in the cockpits but the engines turned off (see (9:09 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [LONGMAN, 2002, PP.
64; FILSON, 2003, PP. 55; 9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 24] After briefing one of the two alert pilots, Borgstrom is called by the crew chief to
answer a phone call from someone at NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) who wants to speak to him. In an urgent voice, the caller asks
Borgstrom, “How many airplanes can you get airborne?” Borgstrom answers, “I have two F-16s at battle stations right now,” but the caller
snaps: “That’s not what I asked! How many total aircraft can you launch?” Although Borgstrom is not on alert duty, he is an F-16 pilot. He
responds: “Well, the only other pilot here is me—I can fly. I can give you three!” The caller instructs him: “Suit up and go fly! We need all
of you at battle stations!” [LONGMAN, 2002, PP. 65; CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, 4/16/2002; SPENCER, 2008, PP. 118] Third Pilot Means No Supervisor -
According to author Lynn Spencer, this order “is almost unthinkable. If [Borgstrom] goes up, there will be no supervisor of flying. During a
scramble, it is the SOF’s responsibility to monitor the jets—to work with local controllers to ensure priority handling and to make sure that the
pilots are receiving lawful launch orders. The SOF stays in close communication with NEADS to get any and all information about the mission to pass on
to his pilots, and assesses weather, airfield status, and spare alert aircraft status in case of an abort by one of the primary fighters. If Borgy
flies, there not only will be no SOF, there will be no officer left at the detachment!”

Only Two Jets Fully Armed - The two jets that are kept on alert are fully armed. As Eckmann will later recall, “We can carry M9 heat seekers,
Sidewinders for the M7 Sparrow, plus we have an internal 20 mm Vulcan cannon, and we were pretty much armed with all that.” [BBC, 9/1/2002] However,
Borgstrom’s jet has guns only, and though the six-barrel 20 mm gun can fire 6,000 rounds per minute, it requires close range.

THE MYSTERY PLANE IDENTIFIED In his recent Internet article "The 9/11 Mystery Plane," Mark H. Gaffney presented compelling evidence--including a
clear photo and video footage--indicating that this "white jet" had in fact been an E-4B National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) plane. These are
highly modified Boeing 747s that act as flying military command posts. [3]

Those statements IMO are far from out of the blue. I have been following that guys blog for years. He is constantly getting hacked by what he claims
is the NSA and he recently had to change websites due to the hacking. That to me indicates he is posting information that is not supposed to be seen
by the public.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.